Ok, one for the guru's..........

[paulhd 0]

I normally don’t post much on the forum. I’m more of a watcher and searcher. But this time I feel I need some help before my next move. So, after using FS9 for the last 8 years and being very happy with it, having spent lots of money on add-ons & additional utilities, I reckoned I was ready for a dabble into FSX. Or so I thought I was. Having a decent setup (see specs) and wanting that little bit extra, I made a start on plumbing FSX into my system. All I thought I needed was a GPU upgrade so I splashed out on a Zotac GTX 570 replacing my older HD5850. I was under no impression that the GTX would grab FSX by the neck and make it into the sim I was looking for. Long story short…it hasn’t. Now my problem is this. With the old card in FS9 with all the add-ons running, add-on airports, a PMDG 747/MD11 or Ifly 737, with lots of nasty weather, I would be getting 40-59 frames (locked at 60). TrackIR lovely and smooth and very immersive. With the new GTX in FSX in a leveld 767 sitting at a default airport I’m getting 16fps….disappointed? You could say that.Being a frustrated airline pilot I need my sim to be immersive. I need to fool myself I am an airline pilot flying to some sun kissed island surrounded by drop dead gorgeous flight attendants. 16 frames per second does not do this. It just gives me a headache. I have replaced the FSX cfg with one from ******* and I am using an external frame limiter. FSX is on my “fast” drive. All my CPU’s are un-parked. In game FSX settings are at default. Is this what one expects from FSX in terms of performance? If so, it’s like going back to the early FS2004 days in terms of performance & none of the advances in techno stuff count for anything!!Anyway, before I leave FSX to gather dust and return to my old steady FS9, can anybody suggest what may be going wrong and why my performance is so shabby?Specs…..ANTEC 900 BLACK GAMING CASE I7 Processor i7-960 (3.20GHz) 4.8GTs/8MB CacheASUS® RAMPAGE II EXTREME: DDR3, 3-Way SLI & Crossfire 6GB CORSAIR XMS3 TRI-DDR3 1600MHz 1.25GB Zotac GTX 570 - DirectX® 111TB SERIAL ATA 3-Gb/s HARD DRIVE WITH 16MB CACHE (7,200rpm)300GB WD VELOCIRAPTOR® SATA 16MB CACHE (10,000rpm)CORSAIR 850W PSU (TX850) + ULTRA QUIET COOLIT ECO A.L.C (ADVANCED LIQUID COOLER)ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

[kparrish1 0]

Tell us which airport you are at and your settings. Are you using AI. At busy airports AI will kill frame rates. keith

[c402_cvs 0]

FPS in FSX is relative. You should rather go with smooth frames rates or stuttering frame rates. At big airports I also get between 15 and 25 FPS but it's always smooth so I'm not too much bothered. Only airport thus far which killed my smoothness was the ORBX YBBN.

[kjng 0]

I normally don’t post much on the forum. I’m more of a watcher and searcher. But this time I feel I need some help before my next move. So, after using FS9 for the last 8 years and being very happy with it, having spent lots of money on add-ons & additional utilities, I reckoned I was ready for a dabble into FSX. Or so I thought I was. Having a decent setup (see specs) and wanting that little bit extra, I made a start on plumbing FSX into my system. All I thought I needed was a GPU upgrade so I splashed out on a Zotac GTX 570 replacing my older HD5850. I was under no impression that the GTX would grab FSX by the neck and make it into the sim I was looking for. Long story short…it hasn’t. Now my problem is this. With the old card in FS9 with all the add-ons running, add-on airports, a PMDG 747/MD11 or Ifly 737, with lots of nasty weather, I would be getting 40-59 frames (locked at 60). TrackIR lovely and smooth and very immersive. With the new GTX in FSX in a leveld 767 sitting at a default airport I’m getting 16fps….disappointed? You could say that.Being a frustrated airline pilot I need my sim to be immersive. I need to fool myself I am an airline pilot flying to some sun kissed island surrounded by drop dead gorgeous flight attendants. 16 frames per second does not do this. It just gives me a headache. I have replaced the FSX cfg with one from ******* and I am using an external frame limiter. FSX is on my “fast” drive. All my CPU’s are un-parked. In game FSX settings are at default. Is this what one expects from FSX in terms of performance? If so, it’s like going back to the early FS2004 days in terms of performance & none of the advances in techno stuff count for anything!!Anyway, before I leave FSX to gather dust and return to my old steady FS9, can anybody suggest what may be going wrong and why my performance is so shabby?Specs…..ANTEC 900 BLACK GAMING CASE I7 Processor i7-960 (3.20GHz) 4.8GTs/8MB CacheASUS® RAMPAGE II EXTREME: DDR3, 3-Way SLI & Crossfire 6GB CORSAIR XMS3 TRI-DDR3 1600MHz 1.25GB Zotac GTX 570 - DirectX® 111TB SERIAL ATA 3-Gb/s HARD DRIVE WITH 16MB CACHE (7,200rpm)300GB WD VELOCIRAPTOR® SATA 16MB CACHE (10,000rpm)CORSAIR 850W PSU (TX850) + ULTRA QUIET COOLIT ECO A.L.C (ADVANCED LIQUID COOLER)ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

To make it short, if you're happy with FS9 stay with it, don't even start wasting your money on fsx.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Hi Paul,Have you overclocked your CPU? That is the single greatests factor in FSX high performance. My former i7-930 ran a stable 4.3Ghz so your l7-960 should be able to do at least that much. 4Ghz plus is King for fast and smooth FPS in FSX. There is no substitute, and no real high preformance results without it.Kind regards,PS: Welcome to FSX. It is a huge and worthwhile jump!

[Guest firehawk44]

FSX uses the CPU's more and the GPU less. In FS9, it was the reverse.... the better the GPU, the better the graphics/FPS. 16 fps is way too low for your system unless you are flying the LvlD767 at night in heavy weather in commercial scenery areas (like MegaScenery) so something is amiss (is it just the LevelD aircraft with the low FPS?). Some of the so-called 'tweaks' made by ******* do not work for every computer system. I really don't think they are necessary for modern computer systems that have the i7 chipset. So, removing some or all of the tweaks may fix everything. The only ones I use in my system is highmemfix=1 in the Graphics section and TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1000 and TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=800 in the Terrain section. You might also check with the real guru, NickN, and check out his 'Setting Up FSX and Tuning It' posts. He keeps this post updated with the latest information - http://www.simforums.com/Forums/topic29041.html. Best regards,Jim

[CFIJose 5,485]

I normally don’t post much on the forum. I’m more of a watcher and searcher. But this time I feel I need some help before my next move. So, after using FS9 for the last 8 years and being very happy with it, having spent lots of money on add-ons & additional utilities, I reckoned I was ready for a dabble into FSX. Or so I thought I was. Having a decent setup (see specs) and wanting that little bit extra, I made a start on plumbing FSX into my system. All I thought I needed was a GPU upgrade so I splashed out on a Zotac GTX 570 replacing my older HD5850. I was under no impression that the GTX would grab FSX by the neck and make it into the sim I was looking for. Long story short…it hasn’t. Now my problem is this. With the old card in FS9 with all the add-ons running, add-on airports, a PMDG 747/MD11 or Ifly 737, with lots of nasty weather, I would be getting 40-59 frames (locked at 60). TrackIR lovely and smooth and very immersive. With the new GTX in FSX in a leveld 767 sitting at a default airport I’m getting 16fps….disappointed? You could say that.Being a frustrated airline pilot I need my sim to be immersive. I need to fool myself I am an airline pilot flying to some sun kissed island surrounded by drop dead gorgeous flight attendants. 16 frames per second does not do this. It just gives me a headache. I have replaced the FSX cfg with one from ******* and I am using an external frame limiter. FSX is on my “fast” drive. All my CPU’s are un-parked. In game FSX settings are at default. Is this what one expects from FSX in terms of performance? If so, it’s like going back to the early FS2004 days in terms of performance & none of the advances in techno stuff count for anything!!Anyway, before I leave FSX to gather dust and return to my old steady FS9, can anybody suggest what may be going wrong and why my performance is so shabby?Specs…..ANTEC 900 BLACK GAMING CASE I7 Processor i7-960 (3.20GHz) 4.8GTs/8MB CacheASUS® RAMPAGE II EXTREME: DDR3, 3-Way SLI & Crossfire 6GB CORSAIR XMS3 TRI-DDR3 1600MHz 1.25GB Zotac GTX 570 - DirectX® 111TB SERIAL ATA 3-Gb/s HARD DRIVE WITH 16MB CACHE (7,200rpm)300GB WD VELOCIRAPTOR® SATA 16MB CACHE (10,000rpm)CORSAIR 850W PSU (TX850) + ULTRA QUIET COOLIT ECO A.L.C (ADVANCED LIQUID COOLER)ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

Paul,FSX is CPU dependent. Even at 5gz you will still see dips in the teens in ceratin airports and payware planes. This doesn't mean that the sim is NOT smooth. I find that smoothness is dependent on several different factors. The most important is the FSX sliders. Lower your sliders to a normal setting and see if you like the picture. If FS9 looks better and feels better, I would wait until you have a computer that can sustain acceptable performance.

[Paul J 349]

Excuse my ingnorance - I just woke up, and have only had one coffee so far..... but what do you mean by" 4.8GTs " ?

[dazz 69]

Excuse my ingnorance - I just woke up, and have only had one coffee so far..... but what do you mean by" 4.8GTs " ?

That's the QPI Link speed in giga-transfers per second

[paulhd 0]

Guys........thanks for your observations and advice.

Hi Paul,Have you overclocked your CPU? That is the single greatests factor in FSX high performance. My former i7-930 ran a stable 4.3Ghz so your l7-960 should be able to do at least that much. 4Ghz plus is King for fast and smooth FPS in FSX. There is no substitute, and no real high preformance results without it.Kind regards,PS: Welcome to FSX. It is a huge and worthwhile jump!

Spirtflyer - I tried overclocking my CPU to 4ghz but the bugger ran quite hot, around 65-70 degrees, even with my CooIT Eco, so I unclocked it to default.

FSX uses the CPU's more and the GPU less. In FS9, it was the reverse.... the better the GPU, the better the graphics/FPS. 16 fps is way too low for your system unless you are flying the LvlD767 at night in heavy weather in commercial scenery areas (like MegaScenery) so something is amiss (is it just the LevelD aircraft with the low FPS?). Some of the so-called 'tweaks' made by ******* do not work for every computer system. I really don't think they are necessary for modern computer systems that have the i7 chipset. So, removing some or all of the tweaks may fix everything. The only ones I use in my system is highmemfix=1 in the Graphics section and TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1000 and TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=800 in the Terrain section. You might also check with the real guru, NickN, and check out his 'Setting Up FSX and Tuning It' posts. He keeps this post updated with the latest information - http://www.simforums...topic29041.html.Best regards,Jim

Firehawk44 - Thanks for the tips. I will conduct some investigation around the cfg settings.

Tell us which airport you are at and your settings. Are you using AI. At busy airports AI will kill frame rates.keith

kparrish1 - Most of my testing was sitting on the runway at EGNX East Midlands with default AI at 45%. Standard good wether settings as well. I've not even bothered with custom AI as i was worried about going negative with the frame rates...!!!!

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

65-70 degrees is OK...

[sargeski 16]

Excuse my ingnorance - I just woke up, and have only had one coffee so far..... but what do you mean by" 4.8GTs " ?

Paul,Your the computer guru here. That would be 4.8 Gigatextels/sec. A textel being a textured pixel.

[Paul J 349]

Thanks! Yeah - I know, Bob, but it was early in the morning. Not many folks use the term, and most don't even know what it a 'texel' is, but I have since seen the term ' gigatransfers' used on a few sites, too, but not by the manufacturers...Good knowing you're still around! :(

Edited February 14, 2012 by Paul J

[Guest jahman]

Paul,Your the computer guru here. That would be 4.8 Gigatextels/sec. A textel being a textured pixel.

No, it's:

That's the QPI Link speed in giga-transfers per second

Cheers,- jahman.

[Bob Scott 7,714]

Paul,Your the computer guru here. That would be 4.8 Gigatextels/sec. A textel being a textured pixel.

What jahman said.There is a gigatexel unit (gigatexel, not gigatextel). Gigatexels/sec (GT/s) is a measure of the texture fill rate on a video card, which is meaningless as a perf spec on a Bloomfield CPU that has no video processing integrated on the chip.